Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] John 13

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/25/2000 6:19:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rsavari@icom.edu.my writes:
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 25, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/25/2000 6:19:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      rsavari@... writes:

      << One of the my students asked this question concerning "Satan entering into
      Judas". The
      question was if Satan entered into Judas then it was of no fault of Judas to
      betray Jesus. Satan used Judas as a pawn. Using the premise that God is all
      and governs all including the Devil, then it is safe to say that God allowed
      / condoned the action of Satan entering Judas. My student's conclusion is
      that if anyone is to take the responsibility, it should be God and Satan
      because man's nature is corruptible and has no power against God. >>

      I think one can deduce from the text, not that Judas committed no fault, but
      that evil in many of its forms has dimensions to it that surpass the human
      subject and his capacity to act. There is such a thing as a "mystery of
      evil", something beyond the realm of pure moralism. John is interested in
      things at this level of consideration (the great conflict between the powers
      of darkness and the power of Light), but this does not mean that he totally
      ignores or would deny the realm of human activity and responsibility. The
      latter, however, is neither the total explanation nor the focus of John's
      particular interest. Whether one can conclude directly from John's
      presentation that Judas was culpable is debatable. But it is here that the
      principle of sola scriptura reveals its limitations. Philosophy must enter
      in, and does so in fact whether one denies or asserts the human
      responsibility for evil.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Jgabriel22@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/25/00 6:19:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rsavari@icom.edu.my writes:
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 25, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 7/25/00 6:19:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        rsavari@... writes:

        << One of the my students asked this question concerning "Satan entering into
        Judas". The
        question was if Satan entered into Judas then it was of no fault of Judas to
        betray Jesus. Satan used Judas as a pawn.>>

        The answer to the riddle of Judas' responsibility reached by your student I
        believe is a very logical answer and very possibly what the writer of the 4th
        gospel intended. Of course, as a Catholic I realize my church has so
        demonized Judas through the centuries that your student's answer could not
        possibly be accepted by my church. To my church Judas is complicit in Jesus'
        death.

        The other question you ask about Lazarus is an interesting question. Luke
        has a curious passage concerning Lazarus. Here it is

        "There was a certain rich man who dressed in a purple robe and fine linen and
        every day he feasted in great splendor. (20) At his gate was placed a certain
        man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21) who was desiring to eat the food
        falling from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

        (22) "When the poor man died he was carried away by the angels to the arms of
        Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. (23) And in Hell he was in
        torment and he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his
        arms. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus
        that he may dip his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am
        suffering in this flame.'

        (24) "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you received good things in your
        life, and likewise Lazarus the bad things. Now he is comforted here and you
        are suffering. (26) And besides all this, between us and you there is a great
        chasm firmly fixed, so that anyone wishing to pass from here to you cannot,
        neither can anyone cross from there to us.'

        (27) "Then he said, 'I beg you Father, send him to the house of my father,
        for I have five brothers, so that he may witness to them, lest they also come
        to this place of torment.'

        (29) "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear
        them.'

        (30) "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead should
        go to them they will repent.'

        ( 31) "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets,
        neither would they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

        It is strange that Jesus gives us a parable with a proper name. The gospels
        almost never give proper names in the narrative, never mind in a parable. I'd
        like you to focus on the last verse. It speaks of someone rising from the
        dead. The confluence of the name Lazarus and the idea of raising someone from
        the dead is not, I believe, coincidence. In the gospel of John, Lazarus'
        raising does not bring people further to the cause of Jesus but actually
        precipitates his death. I wonder if there was not such a memory in the minds
        of early Christians which only John and his group put to paper. Could Luke's
        parable be an allusion to Lazarus' raising and the fact that it did not
        persuade most of the Jews to follow Jesus?

        Roberto Scrofani
      • Richard Anderson
        ... Luke ... [rich man dressed in purple is a description of high priest] (27) Then he said, I beg you Father, send him to the house of my father, ... come
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 25, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Roberto, greetings:

          > The other question you ask about Lazarus is an >interesting question.
          Luke
          > has a curious passage concerning Lazarus. Here it is
          >
          > "There was a certain rich man who dressed in a purple robe and fine linen

          [rich man dressed in purple is a description of high priest]

          (27) "Then he said, 'I beg you Father, send him to the house of my father,
          > for I have five brothers, so that he may witness to them, lest they also
          come
          > to this place of torment.'

          for I have five brothers is an explicit reference to one of the reigning
          high priest, who as one of the sons of Annas had at least three brothers who
          served as High Priests and one famous brother-in-law, Caiaphas. At least
          one grandson of Annas served as high Priest.

          The plot thickens because there was a man named Theophilus who served as
          high priest from 37 to 41 C.E.
          >
          > (29) "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear
          > them.'
          >
          > (30) "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead
          should
          > go to them they will repent.'


          If this high priest was a member of the saduccees, he did not believe in the
          resurrection nor did he believe in heaven except possibly on the day of
          judgment for all of humanity. I am not certain as what the saduccees
          believe about angels and angelic messengers.
          >
          > It is strange that Jesus gives us a parable with a proper name. The
          gospels
          > almost never give proper names in the narrative, never mind in a parable.

          I'd
          > like you to focus on the last verse. It speaks of someone rising from the
          > dead. The confluence of the name Lazarus and the idea of raising someone
          from
          > the dead is not, I believe, coincidence.

          There are a number of parallels between Luke and John



          >Could Luke's
          > parable be an allusion to Lazarus' raising and the fact >that it did not
          > persuade most of the Jews to follow Jesus?

          Yes. This chapter (16) in my opinion was directed to the high priest just
          as the previous chapter (15) was directed to the pharisees.

          Richard H. Anderson

          http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
        • Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Concerning the Lazarus parable, Richard Anderson ... Why do you say this? Why couldn t this be a King? Or perhaps simply a rich man wearing expensive clothing?
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 26, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Concerning the Lazarus parable, Richard Anderson
            wrote:

            > the rich man dressed in purple is a description of
            > the high priest

            Why do you say this? Why couldn't this be a King? Or
            perhaps simply a rich man wearing expensive clothing?

            Richard Anderson then added:

            > for I have five brothers is an explicit reference to
            > one of the reigning high priest, who as one of the
            > sons of Annas had at least three brothers who served
            > as High Priests and one famous brother-in-law,
            > Caiaphas. At least one grandson of Annas served as
            > high Priest.

            How does this add up to five brothers?

            Richard Anderson then added:

            > The plot thickens because there was a man named
            > Theophilus who served as high priest from 37 to 41
            > C.E.

            I don't see what the connection is here. Could you
            elaborate on your meaning?

            Jeffery Hodges

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
            http://mail.yahoo.com/
          • Richard Anderson
            ... William Barclay stated in his Daily Study Bible series on Luke commenting on this verse wrote: That is the description of the robes of the High Priests. .
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 27, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              > Concerning the Lazarus parable, Richard Anderson
              > wrote:
              >
              > > the rich man dressed in purple is a description of
              > > the high priest

              > Why do you say this? Why couldn't this be a King? Or
              > perhaps simply a rich man wearing expensive clothing?
              >

              William Barclay stated in his Daily Study Bible series on Luke commenting on
              this verse wrote: "That is the description of the robes of the High Priests.
              . . ."


              > Richard Anderson then added:
              >
              > > for I have five brothers is an explicit reference to
              > > one of the reigning high priest, who as one of the
              > > sons of Annas had at least three brothers who served
              > > as High Priests and one famous brother-in-law,
              > > Caiaphas. At least one grandson of Annas served as
              > > high Priest.
              >
              > How does this add up to five brothers?

              We know that Annas had a large family. I only included the ones I could
              specifically identify as family members serving as high priests. It is my
              opinion that I am expressing. see below.
              >
              > Richard Anderson then added:
              >
              > > The plot thickens because there was a man named
              > > Theophilus who served as high priest from 37 to 41
              > > C.E.
              >
              > I don't see what the connection is here. Could you
              > elaborate on your meaning?
              >
              Luke addressed his gospel to "most excellent Theophilus"

              Richard H. Anderson
              see my published articles for add. details at
              http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
              About the rich man dressed in purple, Richard Anderson ... Why is Barclay s opinion the correct one? Does he give an argument? To my question How does this
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 27, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                About the rich man dressed in purple, Richard Anderson
                wrote:

                > William Barclay stated in his Daily Study Bible
                > series on Luke commenting on
                > this verse wrote: "That is the description of the
                > robes of the High Priests.
                > . . ."

                Why is Barclay's opinion the correct one? Does he give
                an argument?

                To my question "How does this add up to five
                brothers?", Richard Anderson wrote:

                > We know that Annas had a large family. I only
                > included the ones I could
                > specifically identify as family members serving as
                > high priests. It is my
                > opinion that I am expressing.

                I think that you would have to prove that there were
                only five brothers in order to make a stronger
                argument.

                Concerning the man named Theophilus who served as high
                priest from 37 to 41 C.E., Richard Anderson wrote:

                > Luke addressed his gospel to "most excellent
                > Theophilus"

                That would be about 45 years later--if the accepted
                scholarly dating is correct. Would this be the same
                Theophilus? Why?

                Concerning his views, Richard H. Anderson suggested:

                > see my published articles for add. details at
                > http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke

                I haven't yet had an opportunity.

                Jeffery Hodges

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
                http://invites.yahoo.com/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.